Nine Years Too Long

by: Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Nine Years Too Long
(Photo: JTF Guantanamo / Flickr)

In 2002, my client, Kuwaiti citizen Fayiz Al-Kandari, was captured by Pakistani forces and sold to the United States military. Since that time, he has been confined without charge at America's notorious island prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for almost nine years.

On various occasions since 2002, Kuwait has politely asked the United States to return Fayiz and the other remaining Kuwaiti detainee to Kuwaiti control. Each time, the United States has refused Kuwait's request, citing concerns about the country's ability to monitor or rehabilitate its returned citizens. In response, Kuwait has constructed a multi-million dollar rehabilitation center, diligently monitored the detainees that were returned previously, and taken action to address each of the United States' concerns. Still, the U.S.'s answer remains the same.

Truthout sustains itself with donations from readers like you. Help keep real independent journalism strong – support Truthout today!

In fact, after Kuwait had satisfied each of the United States' concerns, the United States simply fell back upon its most enduring argument for refusing Kuwait's requests: Abdallah Al Ajmi, a former Guantanamo detainee who was involved in a suicide bombing in March 2008. Since that time, the United States has relied upon the Al Ajmi incident as irrefutable proof that Kuwait is incapable of taking custody of its own citizens. Of course, the fact that the March bombing occurred before the construction of the Kuwaiti rehabilitation center and before the country began diligent monitoring of detainees and implemented other new programs is of no consequence. As a result, no matter what safeguards Kuwait implements, it cannot possibly appease the United States, and Kuwait's polite requests will never be granted.

It is time for Kuwait to adopt a new strategy and begin meaningful negotiations for the return of its sons. At a minimum, if Kuwait's goal is to repatriate the two Kuwaitis held at Guantanamo Bay, it should send a team of professionals there to evaluate both men and begin the process of repatriation on site.

The following factors are almost certainly true: Kuwait and the United States will never have a stronger friendship than they currently have; Kuwait will never be more stable or better able to handle its two remaining detainees; there is insufficient evidence to prove any crime on the part of the detainees - America cannot convict them in court and must therefore resolve their cases by some alternate means.

Unfortunately, such "alternate means" may be indefinite detention, the most draconian tool in President Obama's foreign policy arsenal. Indefinite detention involves a decision that a particular detainee cannot be successfully prosecuted (due to insufficient evidence) and cannot be released (because of alleged connections to an enemy force). Thus, the unfortunate subject is "indefinitely detained" until "cessation of hostilities" - which, in the War on Terror, will never occur. In essence, it amounts to a life sentence without trial, based upon secret information reviewed by secret individuals in secret proceedings.

President Obama's only other option is to trust Kuwait to take responsibility for its own citizens, and this is the course of action Kuwait must demand (not request). Kuwait has only a limited time before Obama's indefinite detention policy becomes entrenched. Meaningful negotiations for Fayiz Al-Kandari must begin immediately - and this time, Kuwait must not take "no" for an answer. In other words, Kuwait should do what the United States would do if the situation were reversed.
 

 

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Air Force Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is the military attorney representing Fayiz al-Kandari, a Kuwait citizen held without charge for nine years. In his civilian capacity, Lt. Col. Wingard is a Public Defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States or any of its agencies.

 

 


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



It's well known that the

It's well known that the vast majority of detainees were only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time because they were rounded up by bounty hunters. 100 were tortured to death, and among them were doubtlessly many innocents.
This represents a major break in the way the United States conducts itself in war. That the originators of such "interrogation techniques" were not prosecuted for war crimes sets the frightening precedent that any future administration can concoct the most heinous of policies and then carry them out with impunity by claiming national security. The obvious implication is that American citizens will someday tortured.
Shortly after the towers fell, a tape was played on an Arab TV network in which Osama boasted that "democracy has been destroyed". The evil genius knew exactly how America would react. The terrorists have won.



So That No Doubt Remains,

So That No Doubt Remains, all readers take note that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and this detention policy is 100% his choice, and his prerogative alone. Hopefully, this obvious example of a seamless continuation of the last administration's criminal behavior will awaken a few who are still paralyzed in the false Left/Right paradigm to then recognize that the Democratic party is entirely as corrupt as the Republican party - both in the service of the war machine equally, and that we bicker and swoon over abortion and other 'social' issues while they vote to send our youth to die and to bankrupt us in the process. Consider that sending the innocent young, and the financially desperate to participate in unprovoked wars of aggression across the world might constitute an issue of more gravity than whether we allow states to decide for themselves on abortion, or whether or not to give the pharmaceutical giants a bigger monopoly by mandating universal health-care, in the name of helping the less fortunate. Consider that many people who call themselves 'progressives' OR 'conservatives' might quickly rearrange these priorities if they didn't have the resources to avoid military service, which our economic draft now mandates for many at the bottom rungs.



Grow up, Bill: Every

Grow up, Bill: Every president since Eisenhower (who knew how not to get bullied by them) has had the Pentagon holding a gun to his head. It's not how it's supposed to be but it's how it is. A bit of realism, please.